NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you for or against the Death Penalty?

Explain your reason and debate...:)

Against. Criminals should be rehabilitated, not killed.

It depends on the crime, the method, and how certain we are that the person is guilty.

Against in all cases. The state should not have the power to inflict death upon people who can be restrained in other ways.

Against. It is wrong to kill a human being no matter what that human being has done. The death penalty sends quite a few innocent people to the grave in the U.S. and in other countries where it is acceptable. It is also horrible to the person, no matter what the method. A mistake in a lethal injection would sentence the person to unimaginable pain till they die, for instance.

Further, about the only crime one might even contemplate it for is murder. But even then, it is not acceptable. It does not discourage people. People murder for three reasosn: passion, profit, and compulsion. The only one where people even think about the consequences is profit, and even there, they don't care, because they are convinced they will not be caught. And if you really think the ideas of a person disappear when they die...well...Jesus Christ*...

Finally, the death penalty actually costs more than keeping a person imprisoned for life, thanks to the whole mandatory appeal bullshit. We could do so many things to lower the costs of prisons anyway.

The death penalty is wrong, no matter what. And wouldn't prison be a better punishment anyway? They slowly go mad over the course of their imprisonment as time passes...especially in solitary confinement...

*I'd like to thank Penn Jilette for that neatolicious way of making that point.

The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crime. It should ONLY be reserved for:

1. Child rapists and murderers

2. serial killers

3. mass murderers and terrorists

4. premeditated murder

5. murder of police officers

It should only be applied when there is overwhelming evidence with substantial DNA and circumstantial evidence. DNA testing would be mandatory for all cases. They should also limit the number of appeals to 2.

Against. It is wrong to kill a human being no matter what that human being has done. The death penalty sends quite a few innocent people to the grave in the U.S. and in other countries where it is acceptable. It is also horrible to the person, no matter what the method. A mistake in a lethal injection would sentence the person to unimaginable pain till they die, for instance.

Further, about the only crime one might even contemplate it for is murder. But even then, it is not acceptable. It does not discourage people. People murder for three reasosn: passion, profit, and compulsion. The only one where people even think about the consequences is profit, and even there, they don't care, because they are convinced they will not be caught. And if you really think the ideas of a person disappear when they die...well...Jesus Christ*...

Finally, the death penalty actually costs more than keeping a person imprisoned for life, thanks to the whole mandatory appeal bullshit. We could do so many things to lower the costs of prisons anyway.

The death penalty is wrong, no matter what. And wouldn't prison be a better punishment anyway? They slowly go mad over the course of their imprisonment as time passes...especially in solitary confinement...

*I'd like to thank Penn Jilette for that neatolicious way of making that point.
I like to think that no one is beyond some sort of reabilitation, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head, or at least Penn did. That guy pwns.

I like to think that no one is beyond some sort of reabilitation, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head, or at least Penn did. That guy pwns.
Aye. I had no idea where I stood before I watched that BS episode. Now, I do. Not that I cannot form my own opinions. It was the whole deterrant thing that was mainly up in the air for me. I always thought it was wrong in the sense that killing people is wrong, and always will.

Maybe those that deserve the death penalty should be kept alive. With IV feeding if need be. We might then plant electrodes straight into the fear and pain centers of their brains attached to two big bright yellow happy face buttons outside their cells that say "Press ME!" on them. We could encourage family members of their victims to visit them in prison.

http://capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm


^This pretty much sums up my view.^

Maybe those that deserve the death penalty should be kept alive. With IV feeding if need be. We might then plant electrodes straight into the fear and pain centers of their brains attached to two big bright yellow happy face buttons outside their cells that say "Press ME!" on them. We could encourage family members of their victims to visit them in prison.
No. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Let us not stoop to the level of criminals in order to punish them. It makes us just as bad as they are.

Rehabilitation, if possible, would be the prefered option. But for people who commit extreme crimes, ie mass murder, rape, torture, pedophilia, I feel that death is the only thing that would provide closure. Such crimes aren't often choices. They're frequently diseases. So it isn't possible to deter future rapists and pedophiles. From my point of view, culling the criminally diseased is preferable to locking them up and throwing away the key. I don't want to have to pay taxes to support the people I hate.

No. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Let us not stoop to the level of criminals in order to punish them. It makes us just as bad as they are.

It is only unusual if it isnt done often enough. Those that are later found innocent can be freed.

Those that receive the death penalty have the lowest recitivism rate of all criminals after it is properly administered.

Rehabilitation, if possible, would be the prefered option. But for people who commit extreme crimes, ie mass murder, rape, torture, pedophilia, I feel that death is the only thing that would provide closure. Such crimes aren't often choices. They're frequently diseases. So it isn't possible to deter future rapists and pedophiles. From my point of view, culling the criminally diseased is preferable to locking them up and throwing away the key. I don't want to have to pay taxes to support the people I hate.
Maybe you weren't listening when I said that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. It really is. Legal costs alone are more than enough to dissuade anyone, I think, though the fact that KILLING A PERSON IS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT should also be enough. More than enough, in fact.

DNA testing is not always accurate, for all we know, 80% of people in the world could be undiagnosed chimeras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29). It's not very likely but it is possible. Also, I could always bring up human error. Basically, if there is sufficient evidence. (Video, or a confession coupled with eyewitnesses) then I'm all for it. Just don't act like genetics is the end-all, be-all.

The state should not have the right to deprive an individual of his or her life. I do not accept the concept of retribution as a legitimate reason for the death penalty.

DNA testing is not always accurate, for all we know, 80% of people in the world could be undiagnosed chimeras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29). It's not very likely but it is possible. Also, I could always bring up human error. Basically, if there is sufficient evidence. (Video, or a confession coupled with eyewitnesses) then I'm all for it. Just don't act like genetics is the end-all, be-all.

Genetics is not an end-all be -all, but it is the most important tool when linking a person to a crime. If you rape a woman, and your semen is found, you cannot just argue away that it is not yours. Same for murder. If your victims blood is found on your person or in your immediate suroundings, its pretty obvious YOU are guilty. You cannot argue with DNA.

Genetics is not an end-all be -all, but it is the most important tool when linking a person to a crime. If you rape a woman, and your semen is found, you cannot just argue away that it is not yours. Same for murder. If your victims blood is found on your person or in your immediate suroundings, its pretty obvious YOU are guilty. You cannot argue with DNA.
Tell that to the woman who's baby was taken away from her before a secound DNA testing showed her ovaries had different genes then the originally tested tissue.

Criminals that apply for death penalty are of no use to people nor country. They are harmful and its only just to exterminate them to show people price of crime and make them good law abiding citizens. A death penalty criminal can cry like a baby, shit his pants, got religious instantly etc it doesnt matter, they dont deserve pity, pitying them gives them strenght. They have lost their humanity and its only human to destroy their twisted shells so that it may cause no more pain to humans.
Death penalty is effective against crime if it is shown to public. Setting examples work good. Its laughable to think that it has no reducing effect on crime if done propely and in effective numbers. Using death penalty for a few criminals is non-effective, it must be more widely used against all dangerous criminals.
Right to live belongs to law abiding citizens of all country, those who goes against law must be destroy utterly and effectively.

I am for, some people can't be help, and will always be a danger to society.

http://capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm


^This pretty much sums up my view.^
Woah, something on that site that I actually Agree on... I need to go read something leftist for awhile.

Mass Murderers Multiple Rapists, basicly if they did it more than once then there beyond hope.

I definetly think Sociopath Serial Killers Deserve it, I don't think they have Souls to begin with for one thing.

Criminals that apply for death penalty are of no use to people nor country. They are harmful and its only just to exterminate them to show people price of crime and make them good law abiding citizens. A death penalty criminal can cry like a baby, shit his pants, got religious instantly etc it doesnt matter, they dont deserve pity, pitying them gives them strenght. They have lost their humanity and its only human to destroy their twisted shells so that it may cause no more pain to humans.
Death penalty is effective against crime if it is shown to public. Setting examples work good. Its laughable to think that it has no reducing effect on crime if done propely and in effective numbers. Using death penalty for a few criminals is non-effective, it must be more widely used against all dangerous criminals.
Right to live belongs to law abiding citizens of all country, those who goes against law must be destroy utterly and effectively.
No, it does not. Examine the statistics. The death penalty has never and will never be a deterrant. Further, we can put those people to use. How about prison labor? So long as conditions don't become horribly cruel, prison labor can quite effectively lower prison costs, not to mention make use of people otherwise useless, in your view. It also frees law-abiding citizens for more worthy tasks. Stop and think before you take away a life.

Besides, who are you to deem who deserves to live and who does not? Life is precious. It is incredibly rare, and to take away life is the ultimate crime, in my mind, regardless for the reason. REGARDLESS. It does not matter what that person has done: it does not justify another depriving that person of his or her life. Period.

I don't want to pay for a mass murderer to live for the rest of his life without strife in prison! I don't want the possiblity of murderers to be paroled, let go, or possibly escape in the future. If a person is found guilty of heinous crimes (first degree murder, mass murder, severe treason), I want him to be removed from society and not drain our pockets.

I realise I'm proEuropean on many things, but this is my opinion on this particular topic.

No, it does not. Examine the statistics. The death penalty has never and will never be a deterrant. Further, we can put those people to use. How about prison labor? So long as conditions don't become horribly cruel, prison labor can quite effectively lower prison costs, not to mention make use of people otherwise useless, in your view. It also frees law-abiding citizens for more worthy tasks. Stop and think before you take away a life.

Besides, who are you to deem who deserves to live and who does not? Life is precious. It is incredibly rare, and to take away life is the ultimate crime, in my mind, regardless for the reason. REGARDLESS. It does not matter what that person has done: it does not justify another depriving that person of his or her life. Period.

So you want to use prison labor to free law abiding citizens for more worthy tasks? Instead of putting some miserable killer to death for killing someone's mother you want him to put their father out of work as well? Whose side are you on?

I don't want to pay for a mass murderer to live for the rest of his life without strife in prison! I don't want the possiblity of murderers to be paroled, let go, or possibly escape in the future. If a person is found guilty of heinous crimes (first degree murder, mass murder, severe treason), I want him to be removed from society and not drain our pockets.

I realise I'm proEuropean on many things, but this is my opinion on this particular topic.
The death penalty takes more from your pocket than life in prison ever will.

Not bad: That would be the flaw in my suggestion, of course. I realize that. What I propose is figuring out a way to allow for prison labor without depriving needed jobs. Perhaps they could take the place of automated machines in some factories? I don't have all the answers, and certainly don't claim to. But I know this: killing a person, regardless of what they have done, is wrong. Period.

http://capitalism.org/faq/death_penalty.htm


^This pretty much sums up my view.^
What if, say, a man killed another man with JUSTIFICATION?

Well, NS certainly is a bloodthirsty bunch.
What if, say, a man killed another man with JUSTIFICATION?
Thus, the weakness of capitalism.org's argument. You can justify anything. Doesn't make it right or even prudent.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

One of Europe's crowning achievements.

Maybe you weren't listening when I said that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. It really is. Legal costs alone are more than enough to dissuade anyone, I think, though the fact that KILLING A PERSON IS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT should also be enough. More than enough, in fact.


Running electricity through a person is expensive. Making chemicals to kill a person is expensive. Borrowing a gun and buying a single bullet is NOT expensive.

It's wrong to kill a person is it? Who cares? Why should we let a sense of right and wrong stop us from doing things? What affect does right and wrong have?

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm

One of Europe's crowning achievements.
One of the reasons I dislike europe almost as much as it despises me. :p

One of the reasons I dislike europe almost as much as it despises me. :p

Because not killing people is such a vexatious practice. :rolleyes:

The death penalty takes more from your pocket than life in prison ever will.

Not bad: That would be the flaw in my suggestion, of course. I realize that. What I propose is figuring out a way to allow for prison labor without depriving needed jobs. Perhaps they could take the place of automated machines in some factories? I don't have all the answers, and certainly don't claim to. But I know this: killing a person, regardless of what they have done, is wrong. Period.

Keeping people in prison is about as cheap as it is going to get without running into State Sanctioned slave labor camps. The cost of putting someone to death however could decline dramatically.

Running electricity through a person is expensive. Making chemicals to kill a person is expensive. Borrowing a gun and buying a single bullet is NOT expensive.

It's wrong to kill a person is it? Who cares? Why should we let a sense of right and wrong stop us from doing things? What affect does right and wrong have?
It's what separates us from mere animals. It is part of why we are sentient. A grasp of right and wrong is probably the single most important feature of sentience, in fact. Denying it is denying who we are.

It's what separates us from mere animals. It is part of why we are sentient. A grasp of right and wrong is probably the single most important feature of sentience, in fact. Denying it is denying who we are.
I deny that I'm a human on a daily basis, then I realize how fucked up I am is proof I am human.

It's what separates us from mere animals. It is part of why we are sentient. A grasp of right and wrong is probably the single most important feature of sentience, in fact. Denying it is denying who we are.


Who said that who we are is a good thing? From my point of view, by rejecting these feelings of right and wrong, which are only consequences of psychological and chemical reactions and therefore different for every person, and accepting what is most convinient for society, we become better people.

Who said that who we are is a good thing? From my point of view, by rejecting these feelings of right and wrong, which are only consequences of psychological and chemical reactions and therefore different for every person, and accepting what is most convinient for society, we become better people.
Perhaps in your view. But I disagree whole-heartedly.

You're right on the moral issue, though. Morals are subjective. There are only a few that aren't, in my opinion, however. The act of killing being wrong regardless is one of those exceptions.

Perhaps in your view. But I disagree whole-heartedly.

You're right on the moral issue, though. Morals are subjective. There are only a few that aren't, in my opinion, however. The act of killing being wrong regardless is one of those exceptions.

Why is it an exception? I think it's perfectly moral.

There are only a few that aren't, in my opinion, however. The act of killing being wrong regardless is one of those exceptions.
Then you don't have to kill people. :) Personal freedoms, ain't they grand?

5. murder of police officers

i find it kind of comical how the police officers must be set at a much higher level then the rest of us. the punishment seems to be worse if it is against a police officer. i guess a police officer counts as two or more civilians.

about the topic in the thread, the poll isnt narrowed down enough. i dont think anyone believes in the death penalty for a speeding ticket. and for all those that are saying prisoners should go through rehab and not prison. im not sure if any of you have gone through rehab or known anyone to go through rehab. but rehab only works if the person recieving it wants it to work. and there are many that dont want to work and dont even think that they have a problem for that matter.

It depends on the crime, the method, and how certain we are that the person is guilty.
You, Me and you are on the same page!

Why is it an exception? I think it's perfectly moral.
And I don't. I suppose this is one of those things we will never see eye-to-eye on. It is our very viewpoints that define how we look at this issue, and since we cannot change our entire viewpoint, we will not change each other's opinions on this issue. I suggest we agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Then you don't have to kill people. :) Personal freedoms, ain't they grand?


:fluffle:

And I don't. I suppose this is one of those things we will never see eye-to-eye on. It is our very viewpoints that define how we look at this issue, and since we cannot change our entire viewpoint, we will not change each other's opinions on this issue. I suggest we agree to disagree, and leave it at that.


So now you see the problem. Whether or I you think killing is moral or not is irrelevant because there is always someone with the oposite opinion who's you can't change. Therefore morality and government decision must be separated and the best interest of society must take precedence.

:fluffle:
My first fluffle. I feel special. :D

It is never right. Why should some judge have the right to take away a life? What is said judge is corrupt or a complete idiot. It can easily be used imporoperly. It can ruin the lives of an innocent family, mistakes can be made.

There is a saying "Anyone can commit a murder with the right setting", something like that. A moment of drunk fury that they will always regret for example. Sometimes major killers have gone on to reform (wasn't there a major case of that about a year ago? He still get executed).

When people can be resserected, a family given its life back and rehoused, re jobbed, time turned backwards to before the person was executed, then I would think about accpeting the death penalty.

So now you see the problem. Whether or I you think killing is moral or not is irrelevant because there is always someone with the oposite opinion who's you can't change. Therefore morality and government decision must be separated and the best interest of society must take precedence.
Morality will always play a role, they very concept of "What is better for society" is moral. Thusly the goverment will always have a bit of morality in it's decisions. In the end, about the only way to ban morality would be to reduce the goverment to defending the people, but that will probably never happen. Even then, it could still be argued that morality played a role...

Against. Criminals must be rehabilitated. No one has any right to decide to end the life of another human being. And what example to show the citizen ? "It's wrong to kill so we kill" ? It's insane. Inhuman, crual, violent and insane.

Against. Criminals must be rehabilitated. No one has any right to decide to end the life of another human being. And what example to show the citizen ? "It's wrong to kill so we kill" ? It's insane. Inhuman, crual, violent and insane.

you can only rehabilitate the willing. if a prisoner fails to see they have done wrong and fails to seek the help, then rehab will be another useless drain on tax payers money.

Against. Criminals must be rehabilitated. No one has any right to decide to end the life of another human being. And what example to show the citizen ? "It's wrong to kill so we kill" ? It's insane. Inhuman, crual, violent and insane.
It's not to show the citizen that, it's to either eliminate the person from society, or to show that killing of a useful member of society is wrong. That may sound cold, but it's true.

No what seperates us from animals is that we have hunting rifles :sniper: :p

Im an elitist, I only give rights to those who earn it. Otherwise spoils people. Criminals earn death, cheap and fast death publicly seen to make people fear and respect the power of law. Human values and rights must be protected by an iron fist. If death is the worst thing that people fear then it must be used, if one day we find a worse method then we must use it. Oh Im sorry we already are, imprisonement!
So we have the right to take away peoples freedoms after all and put them in jail but we dont have the right to kill them eh? lol :p
I mean by imprisoning people we justify it if we look things in that kind of logic so we cant punish anyone at all. Just destory the goverment hurray! no one has the right to punish a human being after all, take away its freedoms eh?
ITs dumb.

It depends on the crime, the method, and how certain we are that the person is guilty.

We have been 100% certain that many people committed the crime they were accused of. It is many of these people which were executed and then found to be innocent after their deaths. The death penalty is a flawed system, therefore it should not be used. It is neither 100% going to get the right person, or a deterrent of crime.

They should also limit the number of appeals to 2.
Disagree. They only grant appeals if there's some new evidence pertaining to the crime or screw-ups in previous trials, don't they? We should make every effort necessary to be sure that people we're about to kill aren't innocent.

I'd agree with the rest of the post, except perhaps the last two qualifying points, but only if it were possible to know that the guy absolutely did it. (Better to let a hundred guilty men live than to kill one innocent man, etc.) If he committed his crime on television, maybe, or if the physical and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and he confesses.

And I wouldn't go for the death penalty even then if he weren't mentally competent.

We have been 100% certain that many people committed the crime they were accused of. It is many of these people which were executed and then found to be innocent after their deaths. The death penalty is a flawed system, therefore it should not be used. It is neither 100% going to get the right person, or a deterrent of crime.
No, but if used properly it will eliminate many people that otherwise would be a useless drain of resources.

Therefore morality and government decision must be separated and the best interest of society must take precedence.

And the best interest of society is, of course, that killing people be wrong.

We have been 100% certain that many people committed the crime they were accused of. It is many of these people which were executed and then found to be innocent after their deaths. The death penalty is a flawed system, therefore it should not be used. It is neither 100% going to get the right person, or a deterrent of crime.

I agree completely. Disregarding the morality of vengeance, I would still disagree with the death penalty on the basic principle of justice. If a method of punishment gives no recourse for a wrongful judgment, then that method is completely unjust.

And the best interest of society is, of course, that killing people be wrong.
Is self defense wrong? Is defense of country wrong? If you said yes to these, then I disagree so strongly that I cannot even fathom it. Now for my real arguement. Is efficiency wrong? Certain people can't be rehabilitated, they become a drain of resources. Thusly, the death penalty eliminates them.

No, but if used properly it will eliminate many people that otherwise would be a useless drain of resources.

So if I kill stock holders or land owners because they are a "useless drain of ressources", I am right ? I do believe they are much more a useless drain than many criminals, who can be rehabilitated. Such things are highly subjective. I do consider the CEOs of Total, Exxon, Coca-Cola, Haliburton, ... much more dangerous criminals than even a psycopath serial killer. We would argue about that for hours, the point is not if I'm right or wrong, but that "useless drain" and "not possible to rehabilitate" is highly subjective.

As soon as you open you door by allowing the society to kill, by considering money as more important than human life, you can justify any murder, any crime in the mind of people, and therefore you incitate to commit crime.

If, on the opposite, you make it clear than human life is sacred, than for no reason you're allowed to take one away (self-defense being a totally different issue, self-defense is not cold-blood murder like death penalty, and it's the only available solution for the one defending himself, unlike the death penalty), and you value ANY human lives better than goods, then you make it harder for citizen to "cross the line" and become murderes.

totally against

and even more against family members of the victim watching the accused one die. This just promotes the attitute that this would be justice, evening the score or something like that. Killing is wrong, no matter who does the killing.

It is bad already bad enough when one person gets killed by another one. There don't have to be two people getting killed.

So if I kill stock holders or land owners because they are a "useless drain of ressources", I am right ? I do believe they are much more a useless drain than many criminals, who can be rehabilitated. Such things are highly subjective. I do consider the CEOs of Total, Exxon, Coca-Cola, Haliburton, ... much more dangerous criminals than even a psycopath serial killer. We would argue about that for hours, the point is not if I'm right or wrong, but that "useless drain" and "not possible to rehabilitate" is highly subjective..
Personally, I don't value human life that much. I value the right of people to avoid suffering. Lower inmate populations means lower taxes=less poor. And if we can simultaniously eliminate someone who has (and if given the chance, probably would continue) to cause human suffering, I'd say that's a right productive day.

Is self defense wrong? Is defense of country wrong?

None of those factor into killing being wrong. As even a high-school philosophy class should teach you, there is a difference between protecting your life when somebody else is about to kill you and you have no other choice ("imminent threat" it's called), and killing someone when there is no imminent threat and you actually have to plan to do it, and want to do it and do it deliberately, despite there being the perfectly viable choice of not killing them. Killing someone because you "think" they'll kill you some time in the future is not self-defence, just like "preemptive attack" is not defence of country.

Now for my real arguement. Is efficiency wrong? Certain people can't be rehabilitated, they become a drain of resources. Thusly, the death penalty eliminates them.

Resources? The irony that you'd make yourself the monster to "protect" us from monstrosity seems, alas, lost on you.

Basicly I find death penalty as a proper way to punish some of the worst criminals, but just in the extreme cases and rarely used so that it wouldn't lose it's essence. In case of war, death penalty should be more common; spies and querillas behind our lines should be shot without a trial as a warning.

But during peace time, I prefer hard penalties such as forced labour or Siberia to rapists, pedophiles, murderers etc

Personally, I don't value human life that much. I value the right of people to avoid suffering. Lower inmate populations means lower taxes=less poor. And if we can simultaniously eliminate someone who has (and if given the chance, probably would continue) to cause human suffering, I'd say that's a right productive day.

But that applies 100% to stock or land owners. At least in my opinion. Where do you draw the line ? How do you decide ? Who decide ? The majority ? So the majority can kill a minority, if they think they are useless ? Sorry, I don't agree with that. And even so, your system is not substainable, because if you ALLOW killing, people will feel morally allowed to kill upon their OWN vision of "useless", "harm", "drain", ... And for me it would be the stock onwers, for some the people receiving welfware, ... so you allow people to justify, morally, most murders.

Resources? The irony that you'd make yourself the monster to "protect" us from monstrosity seems, alas, lost on you.
To be honest, most of this discussion is moot from my point of view. The goverment should only protect it's people from outside threats IMHO, but if you have to live in a situation where communities can't string up offenders with no backlash, then this is the next best thing.

But that applies 100% to stock or land owners.
Prove it to a randomly selected jury and I'd send them to the gallows.

The mark of a civilization can be seen in how it treats its prisoners.

The mark of a civilization can be seen in how it treats its prisoners.
In the opinion of several people.

I'm against for two reasons:

1. There is always, ALWAYS, a chance that a person found guilty is actually innocent.

2. If someone is guilty of a truly heinous crime, a life of solitary confinement is a much more fitting crime than a quick death.

And the best interest of society is, of course, that killing people be wrong.


That's yet to be analysed.

I'm against the death penalty in all cases.

I would give my reasons, except so many other people have already replied to this topic, I figure they have already been given :p

I'm against. The possibility of a wrongful execution is unacceptable to me.

I'm against. The possibility of a wrongful execution is unacceptable to me.


You'd rather the person have to spend the rest of their life in prison knowing that they are innocent?

Looking at some of the crimes I read about in the newspaper (either the times or the telegraph, not the mail) I'd support the death penalty in the UK. Rehabilitation clearly is not working, so it would be best to deter people from the more serious crimes.

You'd rather the person have to spend the rest of their life in prison knowing that they are innocent?
Yes.

Better then them being killed. And besides, if found to be innocent at a later date, they can be released.

Yes.

Better then them being killed. And besides, if found to be innocent at a later date, they can be released.

True. But shouldn't we, instead of not disposing of the criminally diseased for fear of killing the innocent, make the standard of proof in a court higher?

The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crime. It should ONLY be reserved for:

1. Child rapists and murderers

2. serial killers

3. mass murderers and terrorists

4. premeditated murder

5. murder of police officers

It should only be applied when there is overwhelming evidence with substantial DNA and circumstantial evidence. DNA testing would be mandatory for all cases. They should also limit the number of appeals to 2.

Although I'm against death penalty, I'd like you to tell me why police officers killers would be punished more than others. Does their lives worth more than others?

True. But shouldn't we, instead of not disposing of the criminally diseased for fear of killing the innocent, make the standard of proof in a court higher?
The criminal justice system is consisting of human beings - the human element is critical to its functionality. And humans make mistakes, for different reasons. As such, the system is inherently flawed and the risks of killing an innocent will always be present when dealing with capital punishment.

And I believe that imprisonment works sufficiently, and that most of the problems surrounding imprisonment can be repaired by increasing the resources (or *gasp* decreasing the penalties for some crimes, to reduce the stress on the system)

What do you mean by making "the standard of proof in a court higher", by the way? Are you thinking about the quality of the evidence?

I'm for it! Kill those who kill. Simple as that. Eye for an eye.

Although I'm against death penalty, I'd like you to tell me why police officers killers would be punished more than others. Does their lives worth more than others?
Maybe because it can be seen as a direct attack against the government organization responsible for maintaining law and order?

You are missing one point people, most of the worst criminals have done MANY heavy crimes. They spend their sentence, bodybuild in the prison or get raped by other criminals so when they come out they become worse and even more dangerous. Every once in a while goverment forgives a few thousand criminals and they are released into public.
Multiple heavy crimes shows clearly that those people have chosen crime for a living. Unless you are living in a paradise where there is no workless and homeless people you dont stand a chance to earn those criminals back into society. World population is always rising and there is always shortage of work, unless every other problem of world economies and societies are perfectly solved, spending money, time and human resources that could be put into education CANNOT be allocated to feed and rehabilitate dangerous criminals. EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS LIMITED RESOURCES, there is no utopian society.
So we must constantly eliminate such criminals, those choose crime as a carreer cannot be allowed to live. Simple crime is a simple problem which can be pre emptively negated by creating more work for people and rehabilitating them. But I repeat, serial killers, serial rapists, hitmans, organ mafia etc must be destroyed instantly giving them no whatsoever chance to save their skin and flourish or give any hope of survival to those who chose this kind of life.

People must learn that crime does not pay.

Personally, I don't value human life that much. I value the right of people to avoid suffering. Lower inmate populations means lower taxes=less poor. And if we can simultaniously eliminate someone who has (and if given the chance, probably would continue) to cause human suffering, I'd say that's a right productive day.

Lower taxes=richer are the richer, please don't be so silly with your Chicago School Recipes.
And to kill someone to save some money is one of the better reasons to hate capitalism.

Maybe because it can be seen as a direct attack against the government organization responsible for maintaining law and order?

Even so, I think is not a reason. Why not then with judges killers? or taxes collector, the real base of the state? And so on.....

Even so, I think is not a reason. Why not then with judges killers? or taxes collector, the real base of the state? And so on.....
Because police are more "in the field" as it were? And they need to have the cooperation and respect of the general public to get the work done?

They are after all the long arm of the law ;)

So, If I understand the theories for death penalty, we should execute president Bush, 'cause he has caused the illegal death to thousand people. Or maybe we should execute the soldiers that killed innocent people. As I know many are going to start saying that war is different, what about the marines in Haditha, where they killed 24 civilians as blind revenge on an attack on them? Should be all of them executed?

Against,

I feel the death penalty misses the mark completely, it's not about punishment it's about vengeance. Now i admit that getting vengeance makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but the state shouldn't be about vengeance. Furthermore, by putting someone to death we are effectively giving them a "get out of jail free" card. After all, when you die it's the end. I say keep people locked up till they die of natural causes, being cooped up in a 2x3meter cell for years and years is much more punishment then even a brutal method of execution (quartering for instance) can ever inflict.

Against. Everyone has an absolute right to life. It's Human Right No.1.

I voted against.

Not because I feel sorry for the criminals, they can rot in jail till they're carried out in a box as far as I'm concerned. It is the thought of innocent people being put to death for something they didn't do that concerns me. If we had the death penalty in the UK, how many Irishfolk would have been erroneusly hanged for effectively being Irish in the wrong place at the wrong time?

At least if someone is in prison and subsequently found innocent they can be freed. If they've been put to death all you can do is go to the graveside and say "sorry ... no hard feelings eh". Which there wouldn't be as they would have no feelings at all.

Personally, I don't value human life that much. I value the right of people to avoid suffering. Lower inmate populations means lower taxes=less poor. And if we can simultaniously eliminate someone who has (and if given the chance, probably would continue) to cause human suffering, I'd say that's a right productive day.

There are other ways to reduce the number of people living in poverty. If taxes are gathered efficiently and fairly then those on lower incomes would pay much less tax anyway, then there's obvious things like fair wages etc.

The number of prisoners serving sentences for violent crime is pretty low in the USA, (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/) so killing them all off wouldn't neccessarily lower the costs of running prisons over there anyway.

I know sentences tend to be longer in the states, maybe that's a good thing, maybe bad, I don't know. It has to be said that nearly 60% of British offenders are reconvicted within 2 years of release, so I'm not saying we've got it right. Although the vast majority of those who do reoffend are guilty of theft and drugs offences, NOT violent crimes. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prisons1.html)

I know someone else said this already, but I am 100% behind them, when the state executes people it must send a message to the public that it is ok to murder people (especially for revenge). Americans tend to come across as very "old testament", it's all about an eye for an eye. Maybe the difference is down to religious background, Europe tends to take the Christian view more often, turn the other cheek. (Not Christian myself btw, and religious history is a whole other debate, and thankfully religion is technically left out of our criminal justice system these days, just pointing out an observation)

I cannot condone killing another person, pretty much for any reason. In self defence cases there may be alternatives, stab the guy in the leg or some other way of incapacitating them etc. War is seldom justified, in fact, I'm much of the opinion that "defence of one's country" is pretty much bollocks in this day and age, especially for those of us in the developed world who aren't actually under threat by any other nation.

Sentences should not be detirmined by finances or revenge, rehabilitation where possible should always be the first option. Confinement for those who have shown no response to rehabilitation attempts.

So, If I understand the theories for death penalty, we should execute president Bush, 'cause he has caused the illegal death to thousand people. Or maybe we should execute the soldiers that killed innocent people. As I know many are going to start saying that war is different, what about the marines in Haditha, where they killed 24 civilians as blind revenge on an attack on them? Should be all of them executed?

Yes.

I believe the death penalty carries to high a risk of killing the wrong person, but I agree with stingy minarchists who think feeding and clothing prisoners is a waste of money.

This is why I am against the death penalty but support mandatory labour for all able-bodied felons. Chain gangs could easily cover the cost of their own food and clothing if they were worked hard enough, and might even make extra revenue for the government which could in turn facilitate tax cuts for law abiding citizens.

Prisoners don't need to be rehabilitated in order to be productive members of society - they can be adequately productive as an unremunerated workforce for the duration of their sentances.

I'm for it! Kill those who kill. Simple as that. Eye for an eye.

So we then can kill those who executed the sentence because they killed too ? That's your logic.

I prefer Gandhi's logic: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

It has nothing to do with morality.
It has nothing to do with expense.

It has to do with keeping society safe.

Society is safer without the death penalty than with.

The reasoning is simple. Criminals, by their very nature, do not feel they are going to get caught before the commission of a crime. If they did, they would not commit the crime, correct?

However, if during the commission of the crime something changes and the criminal then feels there is a chance they would get caught, the desparation of their actions to ensure their escape will be directly related to the severity of the penalty if they get caught. If the penalty for getting caught is already death, there is no reason to allow any of the witnesses to live.

Put simply, the death penalty kills witnesses.

Although I am not from Texas (sorry leilei, sorry grace, sorry alex) I want the Death Penalty for one thing. Murder. If you commit homicide, you should die from bullet to head.

Although I am not from Texas (sorry leilei, sorry grace, sorry alex) I want the Death Penalty for one thing. Murder. If you commit homicide, you should die from bullet to head.

And then you kill the one who fired the bullet, because he just commited a murder, and so on until everyone is dead ?

When Bush was the Gov. of TX, he applied two criteria in signing death warrants:

'Is the criminal guilty beyond reasonable doubt?'
'Have all methods of legal repeal been exhumed?'

These served him well.

FOR!

Reasons: Jeffery Dahlmer, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, 'Willie' Picton, Charles Eng, Charlie Manson.

Need I say more?

Against.

FOR, but only when used as a deterrent against people who are actually afraid to die. Capital punishment doesn't work on you unless you're afraid to die. Sentencing drug dealers to death doesn't work because they aren't, say it with me now, afraid to die. They're already killing each other! Now, if we started executing the bankers who launder drug money, THEN we'd see some results. Rich, white, Conservative bankers are definitely afraid to die. Use the death penalty on them, and you have a potential solution to the recockulous "war on drugs". Anyone notice that this boondoggle has been slipping under the radar for the last six years or so? That's the great thing about wars, they distract the public from...other wars.

[/paraphrased Carlin & Hicks]

Very much for. I may be liberal on 95% of issues but not so much on this one. If you take the most important thing from someone which is their life and then I see no reason what so ever why you should live. I say will kill all murders, and some sex offenders too. It will bring justice and free up prison space.

It will bring justice and free up prison space.
Not only does it not free up prison space, but its clearly more expensive then having them simply locked up the whole time. Bringing Justice is entirely debatable also. I don't think it brings justice.

Very much for. I may be liberal on 95% of issues but not so much on this one. If you take the most important thing from someone which is their life and then I see no reason what so ever why you should live. I say will kill all murders, and some sex offenders too. It will bring justice and free up prison space.
Dude, you kinda destroyed your own argument there...

Dude, you kinda destroyed your own argument there...
The argument could be made that sexually abusing someone leaves that persons emotionally dead inside and thus you do take their life. It not phsyically, mentally. They should be punished for destroying their life.

Not only does it not free up prison space, but its clearly more expensive then having them simply locked up the whole time. Bringing Justice is entirely debatable also. I don't think it brings justice.
Its only more expensive because of the damn appeals process. My way would be far cheaper than supporting a life in prison. My way of course is after the guy(or gal) is sentence, send them out back have an officer take out his pistol, shoot him in the head and charge his family for the bullet. See, its cheaper.

I deem the chance of a juridical misjudgement, however small, too big to let a (wo)man's live depend on it.

The argument could be made that sexually abusing someone leaves that persons emotionally dead inside and thus you do take their life. It not phsyically, mentally.
No, not really. That would be going too far.

Let's laugh on cue.

Let's laugh on cue.
Hahaha? :p

I deem the chance of a juridical misjudgement, however small, too big to let a (wo)man's live depend on it.

And yet murders currently walk out of prison and murder again because they are deemed to be fit for society. Sometimes from within prison. The recitivism rate of prisoners is at 0 once they are put to death.

And yet murders currently walk out of prison and murder again because they are deemed to be fit for society. Sometimes from within prison. The recitivism rate of prisoners is at 0 once they are put to death.
You have a good example of the juridical misjudgement that Philephebia said could occur, there...

You have a good example of the juridical misjudgement that Philephebia said could occur, there...

I know. My point is that it is a two way street. Im more likely to be killed by a murderer who is released than I am to be wrongfully killed by the State. I would rather err on the side of my safety. I am pro death penalty.

Tell that to the woman who's baby was taken away from her before a secound DNA testing showed her ovaries had different genes then the originally tested tissue.

Please... lets not get off on some soet of cheap sci-fi scenario here OK???

Chimerism of that sort is extremely rare, you have no argument.

Time to die. The whole idea just gives me chills. For. ^^

Against. Everyone has an absolute right to life. It's Human Right No.1.

Wrong.

When you decide to take another persons life and violate their rights, you automatically forfeit your own.

When a pedophile takes a child and violates them by raping them, they automatically cease to be human beings in my eyes and deserve to be killed.

''Everyone has an absolute right to life. It's Human Right No.1.''
I believe this to be absolute joke, who says this, who enforces this? Its just empty words spilled unthoughtfully and repeated ignorantly by sheep massess. Empty propaganda like this is intented to wash brains of fools to believe in a synthetic truth, a dream utopia, so that they will not mess with the things are really running undercover.

I think that the Death Penalty is wrong. The way i think is that if someone has done something so terrible, ie, murder, how does another life taken make it right? How does it help the family and friends left behind?

I feel that you have made another murder in the world. Some one who can kill in the name of the law. That sounds wrong and goes againt the ruling in the court. 'i sentence you for the crime of killing someone to sit in a room while we make some one else a murderer'.

As some one stated earlier, in america, innocent people ARE sent to their death. How do we know that more of them are not innocent?

Think about this: Can you give a life to a dead body?, Then should we have the right to take away a life?

Strongly against.

The raison-d'etre of the State is to safeguard the survival of its citizens.
That pretty much excludes shooting 'em.

Having said that: I don't believe that the State has many responsiblities when it comes to foreign nationals. Spies and Terrorists come to mind.

Ah, what's the point in letting them rot in prison living off our taxes.

Ah, what's the point in letting them rot in prison living off our taxes.Because it's better we pay the miniscule rates of supporting someone in prison than it is having the family of a witness have to attend a funeral.

I think that the Death Penalty is wrong. The way i think is that if someone has done something so terrible, ie, murder, how does another life taken make it right? How does it help the family and friends left behind?

I feel that you have made another murder in the world. Some one who can kill in the name of the law. That sounds wrong and goes againt the ruling in the court. 'i sentence you for the crime of killing someone to sit in a room while we make some one else a murderer'.

As some one stated earlier, in america, innocent people ARE sent to their death. How do we know that more of them are not innocent?

Think about this: Can you give a life to a dead body?, Then should we have the right to take away a life?
It helps the families of future possible victims by never giving criminal that chance.

i find it kind of comical how the police officers must be set at a much higher level then the rest of us. the punishment seems to be worse if it is against a police officer. i guess a police officer counts as two or more civilians..

Police officers serve their community with bravery and deserve respect. Their lives are just as valuable as anyone else, but when, lets say, a criminal shoots a cop who is doing his job to protect his community, then they deserve the death penalty for this.

and for all those that are saying prisoners should go through rehab and not prison. im not sure if any of you have gone through rehab or known anyone to go through rehab. but rehab only works if the person recieving it wants it to work. and there are many that dont want to work and dont even think that they have a problem for that matter.

I agree on the issue of rehabilitation. It only works for those who want to make a real change in their lives. Criminals who feel they have nothing left to lose, or who think they don't have a problem, will never benefit from this.